Kate Hudson and Oscar's Changing Tastes

I have been following the Oscars relatively religiously since 1995.  That was the first year I actually read, in real time, magazines like TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly trying to predict who would win, and even did my own predictions with my family.  If the old Malcolm Gladwell adage is correct, I hit 10,000 hours of expertise toward the Oscars before I could drive a car, and know a thing or two about the ceremony and its tastes.

I was struck by that while thinking about this year's Best Actress race.  I have bemoaned on this blog many times the near uniformity in the Academy's nominations compared to precursors in recent years (it's why we ended up with, for the first time since 2006, not a single person who qualified for our annual "No Globe, No SAG, No Problem!" article last year).  However, we'll get to that problem in a few weeks once the SAG nominations have been announced.  For today, I want to talk about something that Oscar has developed in this uniformity: good taste...and how it's costing us what would've been a certain Oscar nomination (and likely win) 15 years ago.

Starting in the mid-to-late 2000's, we began to see acting lineups that would always go to the same films.  The Globes, SAG, and BAFTA were at one point a pretty strong indicator of what might be in the conversation, but they didn't end the conversation-new names showed up and Oscar would pick titles and stars that didn't win previously.  But when the awards bodies began to sync, they also started to emulate other people, namely critics prizes and influential online predictors who became a circle of self-fulfilling prophecy.  In the process, acting prizes that would've been long-shots a few years ago became real threats for nominations.

The Oscars do have a history of nominating acting performances from character actors and unknowns that might have otherwise gone unnoticed, at least since the 1970's.  Some that come to mind include Emily Watson (Breaking the Waves), Isabelle Adjani (The Story of Adele H), and Massimo Troisi (Il Postino).  But looking at the Best Actress field in 2025, this seems to be almost completely a list of performances that would've all been longshots years ago.  Renate Reinsve is acting largely in Swedish, Jessie Buckley is in an introspective period drama, Rose Byrne plays in an uncomfortable black comedy, Amanda Seyfried in an unusual dramatic musical, and Tessa Thompson in a retelling of an Ibsen play.  Even established stars like Jennifer Lawrence & Emma Stone are in complicated, sometimes hard-to-watch films from prickly auteur directors that would be a stretch ten years ago.  The Best Actress field at the Oscars has historically been for crowdpleasers, for biopics and romances and uplifting dramas.  It's also been historically for nominating either sturdy dramatic movie stars (like Bette Davis or Susan Sarandon), comeback vehicles for former glory, or for honoring Hollywood's newest "princess" (or reigning America's Sweetheart).  I'm not bemoaning the change (because a good chunk of what I just said is sexist even if it's reality for the Academy), and some of these performances are really good (I've seen almost all of them).  But in an era where the Oscars have lost their identity to precursors (and in the process kind of blended into an increasingly predictable pattern), it's weird that there's one performance this year that, 15-20 years ago, Oscar would've not just nominated, but would've been the frontrunner for the win: Kate Hudson in Song Sung Blue.

Hudson has every hallmark of an Oscar winner, and in some ways matches some of the recent trends even for the modern Oscars.  She's playing a real-life person in a musical drama, and is getting a late-in-the-year release that won her a Golden Globe nomination.  She is a former America's Sweetheart, something that at one point would win women like Sally Field, Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, & Reese Witherspoon their own statues and given how that phrase has largely gone out of style, she (along with Drew Barrymore and Jennifer Aniston) is one of the last actresses who may ever really carry that title (in a Hollywood desperate for nostalgia & turning back the clock, this can't be discounted).  Which gets us to something that has been a trend in recent years: she's another movie star from the 1990's & early 2000's who is still acting, and who hasn't won an Oscar yet.  In recent years we've seen the Academy fall for people of this era without a statue (Will Smith, Brendan Fraser, Robert Downey, Jr., & Demi Moore all fall into this bucket), and she'd be a solid bet as a result.  The fact that her mother and stepfather are also iconic movie stars (her mom already has an Oscar), would just add another dimension to the prize.

So why does Hudson feel like an afterthought?  Part of this is box office.  In a different era, Song Sung Blue would be the kind of movie that would be a guaranteed crowdpleaser (83% on Rotten Tomatoes, a Christmas release, two movie star leads...something that would drive people to the theaters), but in this era where anything that isn't horror feels like a risky bet at the box office, there's no guarantee that the film's gross will be there.  Box office, as ever, still matters with Oscar (if it wasn't a sleeper hit, The Substance would've had no chance last year...same with Sinners & Weapons this year), but the kinds of films that Oscar would normally gain permission to like (like, say, The Blind Side) because audiences demanded it aren't really a thing anymore, and that's impacted not just the Oscars, but other awards bodies as well.  Anyone But You, for example is a terrible film...but given it's a romantic-comedy and made $220 million in an era where movies like it never make that kind of money, in the HFPA days Sydney Sweeney & Glen Powell both would've gotten Globe nominations.  Hudson has a Globe nomination, but if you look at predictions sites, they seem to think she's an asterisk on this race rather than a more serious race for the win (or, quite frankly, even a nomination).

And they might be right.  I could be Paul Muni in The Last Angry Man being furious about the loss of the ancient texts, ones that would've pointed to Hudson being a nominee, but do those texts still matter in an era where critics seem to inform Oscars more than genre or what is populist?  It's entirely possible that me trying to look at this race from an historical angle (which would definitely say to include Hudson in your guesses) is foolish and I should focus on the nominees most likely to get stacks of precursor citations and buzz online...that might be the only correct way to predict the Oscars now.  And I haven't seen Hudson in this film (it's not out yet in Minnesota, but I will over Christmas), but her missing might be a good thing-I really like Kate Hudson (she's gotten two My Ballot nominations on this site for a reason), but I don't know that this looks like my thing.  So don't confuse this for me wishing she was in, but instead noting the passage of time and how the Oscars of my youth are very different than those of today, an era marked by far more consistency in good taste...and quite a bit more boredom in seeing who is included.

OVP: Norma Rae (1979)

Film: Norma Rae (1979)

Stars: Sally Field, Ron Leibman, Beau Bridges, Pat Hingle, Barbara Baxley

Director: Martin Ritt

Oscar History: 4 nominations/2 wins (Best Picture, Actress-Sally Field*, Adapted Screenplay, Original Song-"It Goes Like It Goes"*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Sally Field: click here to learn more about Ms. Field (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Sally Field's career began in television, and was inspired by another America's Sweetheart we profiled this year, Sandra Dee.  Field was the titular girl-next door in the television version of Gidget, but the show only lasted one season due to poor ratings (it would do better in syndication).  Field then took on what would end up being the biggest early success of her career and a setback for Field in the long run, playing Sister Bertrille in The Flying Nun, a hit for ABC that lasted three seasons.  Field couldn't escape the role, though, and was cast in a series of cutesy parts and girl-next-door roles.  It's possible that this is where Field would've stayed, but under the mentorship of Lee Strasberg (and thanks to the insistence of Joanne Woodward, her costar), she was able to land the lead role in Sybil, a TV movie that won her acclaim and an Emmy Award (beating not just Woodward, but other "reputable" actresses like Jane Alexander & Julie Harris).  Field alternated in the late 1970's between commercial fare like the box office smash Smokey and the Bandit and serious-minded cinema, including today's film, which won her her first Oscar, Norma Rae.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place in a southern community (it's never confirmed, but you get an Alabama/Mississippi vibe from the surroundings), where Norma Rae Wilson (Field) works at a cotton mill and is frequently speaking out to management about the treatment of the workers, particularly her parents, who also work at the mill.  She meets a union organizer named Reuben (Leibman), who is pushy but well-informed, and trying to get the textile mill to unionize to fight back against the low wages & unfair treatment.  During this time, she meets and marries Sonny (Bridges), a sweet-but-simple (think himbo energy) coworker of hers, and they combine their families.  Norma Rae eventually joins Reuben's crusade, fighting for union rights for the textile workers, even though it's putting her life and reputation at risk.  Despite pitfalls, including a lot of pain to her marriage and her father dying from exhaustion, she is able to create the union, and hopefully in the process make her town better.

There aren't a lot of Best Actress-winning performances that I've never seen (I checked-I've caught 88% of the winners at this point), and this is one of the most-heralded that I have left.  I was curious how it would abide, and I was pleasantly surprised.  Field is excellent as Norma Rae.  I figured she'd play against type, trying still to shed the Flying Nun veneer, but she also grounds this work.  Her Norma Rae is not everything you'd expect.  She's defiant, but also quite charming and gregarious...it makes sense that a union organizer would be someone people genuinely like (otherwise why would they join her...JD Vance aside, politicians tend to be likable), but that doesn't usually happen in movies like this.  She grounds her work, making her feel like someone who gets things wrong, but isn't ashamed of being a sinner.  I think she takes this in different ways that other actresses would've and indeed Field wasn't the first choice here.  Jane Fonda, Jill Clayburgh, and Marsha Mason all turned down the role...and all famously lost at the Oscars to Field when she beat them (something that had to particularly sting for Clayburgh & Mason, who would never win an Academy Award).

The movie's most famous scene is the one where Field stands up in the factory, and holds up a placard saying "UNION" in big bold letters.  I have seen this still picture so frequently, and yet the actual scene itself played fresh.  Again, this is a testament to the filmmakers who understand subtlety, but the way that it slowly, steadily, uses the sound design of each machine turning off, the workers taking a stand next to her as they understand she's giving up everything to give them a better life, and it's time for them to stand with her, is incredibly moving.  The film is very much a product of the 1970's (the lovely song theme, the way the camera wants to show realism, the sexual politics at play), but that scene with the "UNION" is for all-time, a reminder that we never can give up the fight to ensure that the dignity of work is protected and respected.

OVP: Ordinary People (1980)

Film: Ordinary People (1980)

Stars: Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Timothy Hutton, Judd Hirsch

Director: Robert Redford

Oscar History: 6 nominations/4 wins (Best Picture*, Director*, Actress-Mary Tyler Moore, Supporting Actor-Timothy Hutton*, Supporting Actor-Judd Hirsch, Adapted Screenplay*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Mary Tyler Moore: click here to learn more about Ms. Moore (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

It's hard to express what a big deal The Mary Tyler Moore Show was when it was on in the 1970's.  The show wasn't a gargantuan-style Friends-esque behemoth in the ratings (it was a Top 20 hit for five of its seven seasons, so respectable, but was not once in the Top 5, peaking at #7 in Season 3), but it dominated the pop culture landscape.  The show would spawn three spinoffs, including the critically-acclaimed drama Lou Grant, and win more Emmys than any comedy until Frasier over two decades later.  Three of those would be for Moore as Best Actress in a Comedy Series.  As a result of playing Mary Richards, beautiful-but-talented, a single woman who didn't need a husband to be happy (or successful in life), she created a feminist icon.  Oprah Winfrey herself has stated she got into television because of Mary Richards, and the normally composed Winfrey openly wept when Moore made a surprise appearance on her show.  Coming off such a success would be daunting, but Moore chose pretty well for herself.  Being guided by Robert Redford in his directorial debut, Moore won the only Academy Award nomination of her career for 1980's Ordinary People, arguably the only significant film she'd make in her career in terms of passing into cultural relevance, a movie that won an Best Picture Oscar that is still discussed today.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about the Jarretts, living in the suburbs of Chicago in an idllic house, but as you can imagine things at home are not idillic.  Their eldest son Buck has passed away from drowning, an accident on a sailboat that occurred while their younger son Conrad (Hutton) was on the boat, and since then Conrad has attempted suicide & gone to a mental hospital.  Conrad is now back-in-school but unsuccessfully readjusting, and his parents are not handling it the same.  His father Calvin (Sutherland) is amiable but largely hoping the problem will go away if he's kind to his son, while his wife Beth (Moore) wants to pretend nothing is different, and lives a sort of plastic Norman Rockwell-style existence, frequently trying to lift her problematic son out of her life completely.  Conrad is in therapy with Dr. Berger (Hirsch), a tough-talking psychiatrist who wants to get to the root cause of Conrad's problems, many of which he places at the feet of his parents.  As we learn, this is both true and an excuse.  Conrad has the ability to change himself, but not those around him, and when he suffers a breakdown, this comes to a head.  His father is willing to bend and be someone different to stay with the son he has left, but his wife is not, and leaves them before the end of the picture.  It's a hopeful, but bleak (and realistic) ending, and look at what grief can do to a family unit.

Ordinary People's best moments come from the prickliness that happens within a family unit, and how each person plays a part (and what happens when one of them is no longer there to play said part).  I think what's so smart about Redford's direction and the script is the way that it doesn't shy away from this.  It's very clear that Buck was Beth's favorite child, and that Calvin tried to compensate by favoring Conrad, though he wasn't as successful because Beth is the dominant figure in the household.  What is more intriguing is watching Beth & Calvin's own realities start to dissipate as we move into the movie.  It's clear that while Calvin loved both the boys, Beth might not have loved either of them, or at least not in a conventional way...she saw them as ornaments for her life, things to show to her friends.  There's an extremely uncomfortable but telling moment where Calvin wants to get a photo of Beth & Conrad together, and while Conrad is willing, Beth refuses, insisting she doesn't need it, and you see the look on Timothy Hutton's face as he understands in real time his mother no longer even wants to be seen next to him, he has strayed so far from what is acceptable as her ornament.  This is a very real type of mother (just look at all of the parents who abandon their children for being gay or trans), who only loves their child if they match the vision they have of them in their head.

And it's a testament to Moore (and the writers) that she doesn't get a redemption.  Part of what makes this performance so good is that Moore's Beth is not someone who is going to change, because she'll never see what she's doing as wrong.  She is the sort of person who has never considered that her worldview might be incorrect, and while Conrad & Calvin are capable of such introspection, she is not, which makes the ending work really well-you get a sense of her going back into her own life of golf, cocktail parties, & church fundraisers, everyone gossiping about how lonely she is behind her back but too afraid to reach out for fear of her slapping their hand.  All of the performers in this are good (Sutherland's blistered dad, Hutton's damaged son, even the least of the main quartet Hirsch's hipster doctor works more than he doesn't), but Moore is the best because she manages to play unlikeable so real.

The big controversy for any Oscar watcher (this is one of the very rare Best Picture winners I'd never seen) is that it beat Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull, and so (for the record) I want to acknowledge that this is not as good as Raging Bull (few movies are).  That movie does more with form, and has a better central performance.  But it is strong, and I get why it has developed a sort of second battalion of defenders in recent years after being something of a How Green Was My Valley/Dances with Wolves-style punching bag for so many years.  It's a great movie...it just probably shouldn't have beaten a masterpiece.

OVP: Actress (1999)

OVP: Best Actress (1999)

The Nominees Were...

Annette Bening, American Beauty

Janet McTeer, Tumbleweeds

Julianne Moore, The End of the Affair

Meryl Streep, Music of the Heart

Hilary Swank, Boys Don't Cry

My Thoughts: In our final 1999 acting race, we move into Best Actress.  Going back this far, it's fun to see where the actresses' careers went.  Two performers were on their first nominations here, and would only get nominated one more time (to date)-one won both, the other lost both.  We have two actresses who were in their prime at the time, having never won, and again-one of them went on to win a "career achievement" style statue, while the other has not won yet.  And in the middle of it all is the actress who basically defines the Academy Awards, one who was getting maybe her least interesting nomination, or at least her worst-regarded.

That actress is Meryl Streep.  This is such a strange role on-paper to get an Oscar nomination.  Originally intended for Madonna, and directed by horror icon Wes Craven, it's hardly the type of pitch that ends with an Oscar nomination, and let's be honest-if it was anyone other than Streep it surely wouldn't have.  The movie is too saccharine, frequently too reliant on familiar story beats.  I think Streep is better than that, but I also am not impressed by physicality; much was made about her ability to learn the violin to play in the movie, but that's musical talent-not necessarily acting.  Her accent work is acting, and impressive, but she can't really make this movie any good, and if you're in the Best Actress field...shouldn't you be able to do more than "better than the movie" when the movie is a snooze?

The same can be said for Tumbleweeds, a better film but one that I think kind of misses the mark in terms of the lead performance.  McTeer is such an open performer-there's a charm and sex appeal in her Mary Jo that makes it impossible for characters (and the audience) not to open up to her.  But I needed more from this performance-technical skill isn't all there is, we also want motive, and I do think McTeer has a sense of where this character is (metaphorically) going.  It's hard to know how much of this is the screenwriter's fault in writing such a specific character with no direction (in a road trip movie, no less), but it's definitely an issue for McTeer's work compared to some of these performers.

Look at someone like Hilary Swank, after all, who does have a sense of her performer in a movie that (while good) is pretty bleak.  Swank fills Brandon Teena with such humanity in the role.  I like that even some of Brandon's mistakes feel real, which is hard to do in a movie, and that's because Swank is giving  such hope to her character, trying to fill them with a sense of life after denying who they were for such a long time.  Swank fills the movie with more feeling than (if we're being honest) the script is giving her, and so this is rising above the movie, but it's a better movie than McTeer or Streep are using as their platform.

It's worth remembering this is Best Actress, not Best Picture (we give to the best performance, not to the performance in the movie I liked the best), but if we were focusing on the movie I like the best, it'd undoubtedly be American Beauty, and Bening is one of its best parts.  The best stuff in Bening's work here is that she plays her character as so guarded.  Watching this as an adult, and with a more modern lens, you can see that she's added a cautious feminism to a character that easily could be a harpy (that's largely how she's written).  Look at how she's largely moved beyond her husband, moved beyond her family even...she's a realtor so to invest in that metaphor, they were a starter home, she's ready for her dream home.  She understands the film's comedy, but more so she understands its tragedy, giving the movie's best(?) performance.

We'll finish with Julianne Moore's turn in The End of the Affair, that time in her career where she was regularly playing cloistered women in period movies.  The movie is very much my speed (I love me a doomed romance), but it doesn't really know how to explore its topic, particularly its sexuality (for a movie that's quite carnal in its approach, all of the sex is limited to the first fifteen minutes).  Moore is unable to get beyond this (and neither is Fiennes, which makes you confident it's the writers doing this given they're two of our best actors), giving us a finite scope into Sarah, never really discovering her balance in the picture.  It's worth noting for Moore in 1999 that this was almost certainly a cumulative award (she was also doing noted work in four other movies-Cookie's Fortune, Magnolia, An Ideal Husband, & A Map of the World), but we have a strict OVP rule where we only judge the film in front of us, not the collective works that might've contributed to a nomination, and in this case, that just doesn't cut it.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes give us both Musical/Comedy and Drama, so we have ten names to start with.  Drama went with Swank, besting Bening, Moore, Streep, & Sigourney Weaver (A Map of the World), while McTeer took the comedy prize, topping Julianne Moore (An Ideal Husband), Julia Roberts (Notting Hill), Sharon Stone (The Muse...and yes is the Sharon Stone luxury watch scandal at the Globes), and Reese Witherspoon (Election).  The SAG Awards went with the exact same lineup as Oscar, with Bening winning, while BAFTA also picked Bening, though she beat Moore (End of the Affair), Emily Watson (Angela's Ashes), & Linda Bassett (East is East) for the nomination.  In sixth here, I think we're looking at either Weaver or Witherspoon.  Weaver is more in the Academy's wheelhouse (sturdy performance in a stiff issues picture from a former favorite), while Witherspoon got an actual nomination for her film (Election was up for writing).  I think Weaver makes more sense, especially given she hadn't been nominated in a decade at the time & Witherspoon's picture was a bit edgy for Oscar, but I could believe either.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Oscar is quite populist, but does have a snobby streak when it comes to genre pictures, and that includes romantic-comedies.  We have talked very little about Notting Hill, a film that has its faults, but I love so wholeheartedly I don't really care, and the thing I'm most confident in is Julia Roberts' pitch-perfect Hollywood actress.  She's playing a version of herself, but it's so filled with heart, hope, and prickliness from being bruised constantly that if it is herself...you just want to root for her harder. A year before she won the Oscar, I would've had this as a lead-up to Erin Brockovich.

Oscar’s Choice: In what was a coin flip race at the time (I think some people have rewritten this to not be as close as it was), Swank won over Bening, costing the latter her best shot at an Academy Award to date.

My Choice: Those are the two names to consider, and while I partially want to give it to Bening (she has yet to win an OVP and only has one guaranteed nomination left), OVP rules say I can't take outside factors into account, and Swank is slightly better.  Behind these two, I would go (in order): McTeer, Moore, and then Streep.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  Are you sticking with Oscar & I for Hilary Swank, or do you prefer one of the other ladies of the category?  Do you feel it's okay to acknowledge that Moore almost certainly got this nomination for five films instead of one...and how many other performances like that have happened through the years and are now lost to lack of historical context?  And was it Witherspoon or Weaver that nearly missed this race?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 1999: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously, in 1999

Past Best Actress Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

OVP: The Unsinkable Molly Brown (1964)

Film: The Unsinkable Molly Brown (1964)

Stars: Debbie Reynolds, Harve Presnell, Ed Begley, Jack Kruschen, Hermione Baddeley

Director: Charlie Walters

Oscar History: 6 nominations (Best Actress-Debbie Reynolds, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Scoring, Sound)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Debbie Reynolds: click here to learn more about Ms. Reynolds (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

By 1964, Debbie Reynolds had been America's Sweetheart for about a decade, and similar to the two other women that we've talked about this season (Audrey Hepburn & Doris Day) who reigned alongside her with that crown, she was about to have that title (and her position as a box office queen) put into question.  But before that, Reynolds got something that clearly meant a lot to her: an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress.  Reynolds is generally considered to be a really winning screen presence, but I'll be honest-I don't see a lot of people praising her for her acting ability, or at least that's not the leading reason that people talk about her.  She is oftentimes praised as "charming" on the big-screen, or that she is a damned fun celebrity, but save for Singin' in the Rain, none of her movies during this time frame enjoys a really solid critical reputation, and she's far more in Day's ballpark than Hepburn's when it comes to acclaim.  I had seen parts of The Unsinkable Molly Brown years earlier, but had virtually no memory of it (to the point where I decided it should count as a "never seen it" qualifier for this series), and was curious for the one Oscar nomination that Reynolds did get, was the public (and to some degree me, who likes her but doesn't think of her as a "great" actress in the same way as peers like Hepburn or Elizabeth Taylor) underestimating her?

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about Molly Brown (Reynolds), a woman who grew up from nothing and then became a fixture in high society at the turn-of-the-century, though it has to be said that this is a highly fictitious telling of her life story.  She starts as a backwoodsman, raised to be a tomboy by her adopted father Seamus (Begley), but she soon falls in love with Johnny Brown (Presnell), a lazy drunk and mining prospector who tries to woo her first on his own terms, and then on her terms (she wants to be a wealthy society woman).  They strike it rich, becoming "new money" but are not accepted by Denver's elite.  To get around this, she befriends multiple royals while galavanting around Europe with Johnny, and comes back with these royals in tow.  She now has the friends to make it in polite society, but Johnny isn't happy, and they grow apart.  While aboard the Titanic, she keeps spirits alive on a lifeboat, and is proclaimed a hero by the town, and comes back to Johnny, their love rekindled, now with them being themselves once more.

The movie is overstuffed, overlong, and far too silly for my tastes.  The beginning of the film is basically just Calamity Jane, complete with the adorable Reynolds with her face covered in dirt and her hair cut short.  But this part, like most of The Unsinkable Molly Brown, lasts too long.  The entire film is basically just a series of mishaps between Molly & Johnny, trying to understand why they won't be accepted in polite society, and changing everything about themselves to get there.  It's not that different than The Beverly Hillbillies, which makes the Oscar nominations feel weird, though they aren't all bad.  The cinematography is oddly good, particularly in the singing scenes (in many ways it recalls some of the outdoor singing shots of Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music), and the costumes & art direction are splendidly colorful and over-the-top (the grand staircase in the mansion is particularly gauche and features heavily into Molly's return from Europe).  But the music isn't strong, either in terms of sound or in terms of it being memorable (I saw it yesterday, and I can't remember one number from it), and Reynolds...she's not great.  Reynolds worked best in MGM musicals because she was spunky and you liked watching her fall in love.  But this film shows her limitations-she can't elevate a bad movie, and she swings for the rafters too much.  This very much feels in the vein of Pillow Talk and The Blind Side, where an actress who had charmed audiences (and the box office) for years gets her thank you from the Academy, even if it isn't earned.

There is one really weird part of The Unsinkable Molly Brown, though, and it's the complete lack of her time on the Titanic.  If you asked any modern audience member, the only thing they'd know about Molly Brown is her surviving the Titanic, and I'll be real-I suspect that would've been the case in 1964 as well.  Yet in the film's 135 minutes, just over two of those minutes take place during the Titanic sinking.  All you see is Reynolds walking the deck during the iceberg hit, one shot of the ship sinking, and Molly keeping everyone on the lifeboat alive.  It's such a tiny part it honestly feels like a joke...as if they ran out of money during production and didn't save anything for the most famous part of her life.  Reynolds is actively bad in the lifeboat scenes as well...trying to shame the women crying on the ship as their husbands are dying just a few hundred meters away.  It's such a strange scene, and worth noting if you're watching this movie because you're an amateur Titanic historian looking for more movies about the subject...because man is it weird & far shorter than it should've been in a movie that otherwise stretches too long.

OVP: Actress (2023)

OVP: Best Actress (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Annette Bening, Nyad

Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon

Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall

Carey Mulligan, Maestro

Emma Stone, Poor Things

My Thoughts: Recency bias is one of the most annoying things about being a part of online social media discussions about the Oscars.  You will hear the most insane hyperbole.  Last season, it was a near constant stream of "Stephanie Hsu losing to Jamie Lee Curtis is akin to a war crime" madness (news flash: Jamie Lee Curtis is nowhere near one of the worst acting wins of all time...she wasn't even the worst acting win that night).  In 2023, it felt like this was directed at Lily Gladstone's snub for Best Actress.  As you'll find out in a second, I really liked Gladstone-I think she's talented, and I think this is the sort of performance that grows on you.  But no nominee in 2023, despite what you may have heard on Twitter, was an "all-timer" in a field of winners that includes Blanche DuBois, Ada McGrath, & Mary Poppins.

Gladstone's work, though, is really wonderful.  I loved the interiority of this part.  She is a woman conditioned to only show her true self to people she can trust, and it's shocking to watch the film and understand how little she actually trusts her husband.  The monologue toward the end, where she starts to interrogate him to understand what was real & what wasn't in their marriage, is devastating less because she's realizing this man she has been with for so many years is a liar, but more so because she realizes that she never was able to trust anyone to begin with.  This is the sort of measured consistency she brings to her Mollie Kyle.

Speaking of Twitter controversies, you'd also think that the Academy had committed one of the ultimate sins by choosing Annette Bening over Margot Robbie in Barbie (spoiler alert for my My Ballot on Sunday: neither of them should've been here).  Bening likely got her citation for Nyad because she wanted it, Hollywood loves her, and there's a general consensus that she should have an Oscar by now, which will require some more nominations to rectify.  But I do think that this is better than the reputation it's earned (even if it's not very good...oh lord, why is Twitter making me defend Nyad?).  Bening's chemistry with Jodie Foster is strong here, and I like the single-minded determination she brings to a champion, but the film's perspective is so dull (not getting into the controversy about Nyad after-the-fact was a choice, and a weird one), and this doesn't have all of the best bite that Bening's finest creations have.  But Margot Robbie is doing fine, so settle down.

Emma Stone's work in Poor Things continues a run since her first Oscar that was inevitably leading to a second, as she's too famous and too good to be ignored.  I loved what she did with Bella Baxter.  So much of this season has been me realizing that Poor Things has aged badly for me, but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to its bet asset.  The way that she approaches almost a dozen characters at once (Bella's evolution being so pronounced and exact in each scene, you have to come up with someone new almost every chapter), it's genius.  This is, I'm happy to say, a win that is going to age quite well, as it'll be correctly a definitive performance of her career.

Sandra Huller's work in Anatomy of a Fall could be the announcement of a new international talent (or she could simply be Jean DuJardin, never to be heard of again from Oscar voters).  I think she's much better than a picture I didn't particularly care for (the overlong legal melodrama where they tell you the ending at the beginning is not a genre I want), though I thought she was better in The Zone of Interest.  The work here is layered, with her intentionally not showing too much of her hand (so that the "is she guilty?" question works), though that also holds back some of her performance.  Part of what we need to realize toward the end is if she believes she's innocent, as that's where Huller's performance is going, but we never quite get there.

The final nominee is Carey Mulligan, who like Huller is given a less than ideal vehicle, but one that she makes the best of the situation.  Bradley Cooper's work here is unfulfilled, but I don't feel like his onscreen wife has the same issue.  Mulligan plays the part of a beard, in many other movies a role that would be milked for sympathy or be a joke, as complicated and complete.  We realize that she loved Lenny, but also loved him from a distance because that was the only way she could without abandoning herself to a man she'll never be able to have fully.  I love the brittleness of her work, the way that she also needs to stay "in the closet."  The only thing really lacking is I don't think her ending gives us enough catharsis with her Felicia, but perhaps even that is keeping in character.

Other Precursor Contenders: As you know, the Globes separate between Comedy/Musical and Drama, and for some reason had six-wide fields in 2023, so we have 12 nominees.  Setting up the matchup for the season, we had Gladstone taking Drama over Bening, Huller, Mulligan, Greta Lee (Past Lives), & Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla), while Comedy/Musical went to Stone over Fantasia Barrino (The Color Purple), Jennifer Lawrence (No Hard Feelings), Natalie Portman (May December), Alma Poysti (Fallen Leaves), & Margot Robbie (Barbie).  SAG favored Gladstone atop Bening, Mulligan, Robbie, & Stone, while BAFTA went with Stone against Barrino, Huller, Mulligan, Robbie, & Vivian Oparah (Rye Lane).  In sixth place, it was almost certainly Margot Robbie.  She was in a major Best Picture nominee, playing a title character...that's usually enough to make it (for the record, I predicted Bening correctly which was the nominee most missed if they went with the Barbie actress-I missed Mulligan in favor of Robbie).  Despite what future "precursor only" readers will say, I don't think her biggest competition was Greta Lee or Fantasia Barrino-I think it was Aunjanue Ellis for Origin, which could've been the biggest shock of the morning given its late-breaking buzz (if it had opened two weeks earlier, I think she gets in).

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I actually like a performance, in a biopic, and it gets precursor support...and still nothing.  Academy, what are you doing to me by ignoring Cailee Spaeny like this?!?

Oscar’s Choice: In a truly tight race, Stone's position as a producer, her star power, and headlining in a film that the Academy seemed to want to honor more got her a win over Lily Gladstone, one that it was clear she wasn't entirely prepared for (and it's not obvious she even wanted given whom she was beating).

My Choice: I'm going to pick the opposite with Gladstone taking it over Stone (my second place).  I think Gladstone's work is a quiet triumph, whereas Stone's is a loud one, and works more effectively (particularly in both of their films' last thirty minutes).  Behind them, let's go with Mulligan, Huller, and then Bening.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  In the battle of the rolling stones, were you Team Emma or Team Lily?  Are we ever going to see Annette Bening clutching her own Oscar?  And why do people feel the need to throw out such hyperbole about the Academy Awards every season (or in general)?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 2023: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Actress Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: The Nun's Story (1959)

Film: The Nun's Story (1959)

Stars: Audrey Hepburn, Peter Finch, Edith Evans, Peggy Ashcroft, Dean Jagger, Mildred Dunnock

Director: Fred Zinnemann

Oscar History: 8 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Actress-Audrey Hepburn, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing, Score, Sound)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Audrey Hepburn: click here to learn more about Ms. Hepburn (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Like many women who wore the title of "America's Sweetheart" Audrey Hepburn's critical acclaim has been questioned through the years by some, claiming she was a "limited" actress.  This feels like an odd thing to point out for Hepburn, who more than almost any actress we're going to profile this year, received a lot of critical acclaim.  Hepburn was cited for five Oscars in her career, winning for Roman Holiday, and that didn't include her lauded work in My Fair Lady, which was widely-expected by many to be a spot for her to get a nomination.  She also was one of the first people to win an EGOT (an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, & Tony) and did so as a performer.  Today, we are going to discuss one of Hepburn's Oscar-nominated turns, the final one that I had yet to see, and one that I think shows the versatility of her acting, rather than calling it (as her critics have) "one-note": The Nun's Story.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on the life of Gaby, a young postulant who for most of the film is known as Sister Luke (Hepburn).  She has, before the start of the film, decided to devote herself to a life as a nun, something that we don't get a lot of insight into the rationale why, though we think it's to become a nurse in the Congo (there's a throwaway line about a boy she liked late in the film, and I rather liked that this might be a secondary reason for her, because it adds a depth to the film even if it might also be a touch antifeminist to assume she couldn't just want this for a career).  Of course, being a nun is not just about nursing, but instead also about devotion to God, and throughout the film we get to see Sister Luke struggle with a crisis-of-faith, trying to find a way to help those around her through her scientific skills, but also to get back to her devotion to the church, and wanting to show that she can be worthy of her new calling, and not just being a nurse.  As the film progresses, it becomes evident that she cannot, and in the final moments of the film, she leaves the convent forever.

The movie was cited for 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and it's worthy of most of them.  The film is wonderfully-structured, giving us a glimpse not only into the life of a woman trying to become a nun, but giving it two-dimensionally.  I have read that some (particularly composer Franz Waxman) were critical of the Catholic Church, but I'll be honest-I don't think the story gets that across.  If you want to debate the Church, you've got your evidence there-the constant critiquing of Sister Luke for having human impulses feels cruel in parts.  But there's also a spot for those who are sympathetic to the church, showing how becoming a nun isn't a calling for everyone, even for the most kindhearted of women (i.e. there's more to being a nun than being good).  I loved that approach, and honestly really liked this movie.  There are critiques to be had (I don't think that it gives us enough connection to those around Sister Luke for us to really understand why she ultimately gives up the church after sacrificing so much), but they're thin.  Zinnemann's approach, the film's lovely cinematography, and the way that it wordlessly adds depth to the ending by foregoing Waxman's score as Hepburn leaves the convent, rather than giving us a dramatic swell, is marvelous.  It's clear at that moment that Sister Luke is picking the only way out, but she's not sure if it's the right one, and the music not giving the audience any indication this is the correct path is really well-designed.

Hepburn's performance here is really stellar.  The cinematography & makeup work are helping her cause, to be fair.  I love the way we start to see the angelic Hepburn's eyes start to become sallow with the weight of the world on her, highlighted by the constant focus on her face (in many ways copying what cinematographer Arthur C. Miller did for Jennifer Jones in The Song of Bernadette).  But Hepburn is also giving something extra to her work here.  Her internal struggles, the way that her inner-monologue never shuts off, particularly when we see that she can't speak to other people, is very reminiscent of Robert Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest, and it's very effective.  Hepburn shows here she might always look like a pixie, but she also was able to use that to create versatility.  She's up against actresses like Simone Signoret & Katharine Hepburn, generally considered to be "better" actresses than she is, but her performance honestly is more nuanced and stronger in the way it highlights the picture than either of those two more celebrated thespians.  Hepburn's critical reputation from some snobbish cinephiles as one-note is, well, wrong.

OVP: Actress (1931-32)

OVP: Best Actress (1931-32)

The Nominees Were...

Marie Dressler, Emma

Lynn Fontanne, The Guardsman

Helen Hayes, The Sin of Madelon Claudet

My Thoughts: There are a lot of really terrific lineups that Oscar has pulled together through the years.  Some, like 2001 Best Score, it's so good it still haunts my dreams over what I picked to win, while others (like 2007 Cinematography) I stand tall in my victor choice, but I am just in awe of how strong the quintet that Oscar picked is.  Best Actress of 1931-32...is not one of those lineups.  I currently have 121 Best Actress nominations left to see (I'll hit one more this week, so watch me on Letterboxd if you don't already as I post every film review there rather than just ones that fit our series here), but of the years that I have finished, this is easily the worst Best Actress lineup I've encountered.  I don't even like any of these nominations (none of them will show up in my My Ballot later this week), but the rules of the OVP are simple-I gotta pick at least one of them to win, and so we shall proceed.

Marie Dressler is the best film actress of these three (the other two are such stage legends they both got Broadway theaters named after them but Dressler knew movies), and was coming off of an Oscar win the previous year with Emma.  But this has none of the fight of Min and Bill, and Dressler is largely relegated to window dressing in Emma.  The film plays out like a melodrama, and her broad-as-a-barn comedy style is a bad fit for a character that is meant to have some more tender feelings at the end of the picture that I don't think she connected with.  Dressler is very watchable, it's worth noting, but she's not super good in this (and neither is the film itself).

Helen Hayes film was a mixed bag even when it came out (I cannot remember which film critic called it this, but they dubbed it The Sin of Maudlin Claudet) which is both bitchy & accurate.  Hayes plays this character to the hilt, but unlike Dressler has a bit more fun with the camp.  She's not as good of a movie star as Dressler, but she's probably a better actor underneath it all, and it shows as the film progresses, with her getting to scenery-chew, but generally in a way that doesn't make you want to click the remote.  Neither of Hayes Oscar wins were for particularly good movies, which is a pity given how storied her acting legend was in her lifetime.

Speaking of storied acting legends, we have Lynn Fontanne.  Some actresses of her era, like Jeanne Eagels, were able to get to the big screen and just nail their first roles in the cinema.  Fontanne...does not.  The performance probably would've worked on a stage, but we aren't watching on a stage-we're walking on a big-screen, and neither she nor her husband Alfred Lunt can sell this one-note, staid affair, and it feels like they neither make sense as romantic partners in the film, nor as sentient human beings given how stupid the premise of this picture is.  Hard pass.

Other Precursor Contenders: I would assume that in fourth place was one of the women that had recently been nominated for Best Actress and were starring in Best Picture nominees, Marlene Dietrich (Shanghai Express) or Greta Garbo (Grand Hotel).  Perhaps the two (who had a frosty real-life relationship) split the gorgeous European-goddess vote, but it's weird that neither of them got into this field, especially as Dressler & Hayes were their films only citations.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Dietrich, without a doubt.  The work she's doing in Shanghai Express is not the best she's ever done, but she looks so damned beautiful it's kind of another level of acting (and she is, for the record, terrific).

Oscar’s Choice: Oscar could not deny Helen Hayes playing a hooker (which would become a route that would work for everyone from Donna Reed to Elizabeth Taylor to Kim Basinger in the years that followed).

My Choice: I feel the need to point out that I give Oscars for the OVP in a vacuum.  Marie Dressler, for example, is the better movie star and by far my favorite performer of these three...giving her a statue right now would mean I don't have to worry about her getting bumped for Min and Bill the previous year, which is a field I haven't yet completed so I don't know if she's safe.  But that's not how this works, and of the three, based solely on what's in front of me, I think Hayes is more interesting and "deserves" the win in a field I don't like at all.  Dressler follows, then Fontanne.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  Are you sticking with Oscar and I with Hayes, or do you want to strike out on your own?  Am I alone in thinking that this is Oscar's worst Best Actress lineup?  And why did Garbo & Dietrich not get layup nominations this year?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 1931-32: Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Story, Art Direction, Cinematography, Previously in 1931-32

Past Best Actress Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Actress (2000)

OVP: Best Actress (2000)

The Nominees Were...

Joan Allen, The Contender

Juliette Binoche, Chocolat

Ellen Burstyn, Requiem for a Dream

Laura Linney, You Can Count on Me

Julia Roberts, Erin Brockovich

My Thoughts: Every time we tackle one of the Oscar Viewing Project seasons, there's always 1-2 contests where I can't quite figure out what I'm going to do with the wins at the top of the season.  Sometimes, like 2001 Score or 2004 Actress, that is something I end up deciding in the moment, and still am not entirely sure I made the right decision.  Today, I feel more confident in where I'm headed, but I do think it's one of those races where I don't entirely know that I want to be on record as picking one of these performances, with three much-lauded pieces of work, above the others.

By sheer accident, we've started all of our 2000 acting races with the winner, and since this will never happen again, we'll finish that trend today by beginning with Julia Roberts.  Roberts' victory is considered by many to be about as perfect as you can get-the best combination of right actress, right time, and right role.  It's hard to argue with the logic there.  Roberts is sensational, giving a movie-star turn as the titular Erin, totally playing this for both the cheering crowds and for the discerning critics, making Erin prickly-but-lovable.  I admire the way that some of the speeches feel both off-the-cuff but rehearsed, as if Erin (and Julia) knew that this moment was coming, and have wanted to say them all of their lives.  There's a lived-in quality here that is undeniable.

The problem for Roberts is that she's also against some other great pieces-of-work.  Ellen Burstyn is giving maybe her most-celebrated (give or take The Exorcist) performance in Requiem, and it is truly something to behold.  The 1970's feminist archetype here plays a housewife with a drug addiction, and it's scary how well she incorporates failed dreams, inner-doubt, and abject loneliness into one performance.  I am not always on Darren Aronofsky's side (I think his films are difficult to watch, and sometimes head into Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu-levels of despair that feel more about torturing than challenging the audience), but while Requiem is a tough sit, it's a good one, and that's due in large part to Burstyn.

While Burstyn was a comeback and Roberts a coronation, Laura Linney was an ascendance, though not to stardom (more to "elevated character actress").  Her work in You Can Count on Me is so strong.  I love the scenes where she's in the car, and she's laughing (or crying), and you just feel her Sammy as a person.  It's undeniable that much of her performance's strength comes from this authentic, marvelous chemistry she has with costar Mark Ruffalo.  It is rare to see a movie that has two actors playing siblings that feels so real, like you can't honestly believe these two haven't known each other their whole lives.  The best performances either actor have given to date.

Joan Allen in 2000 was on something of a streak, one that was about to end.  In six years, she'd amassed not only three Oscar nominations, but much-lauded work in The Ice Storm & Pleasantville that easily could've gotten her to five nods in six years.  Her work in The Contender isn't as impressive as some of the rest of that run, though.  I think this is strong stuff, but it's a lot of "girlboss" rah rah before that would become a thing.  We see her play a woman of honor in a town that wrings that from you, and her speech toward the end felt like an active play to liberal Oscar voters (or me...I'd vote for her senator too!).  But it doesn't feel like we really get to know her character-we just get to know her as an idea.

It always feels a little silly to me that Juliette Binoche, maybe our finest working actor, not only has just two Oscar nominations, but she has the latter one for a little trifle that most people mock.  That doesn't feel totally fair.  Binoche is good in Chocolat, and gives exactly what this little confection (pun intended) is meant to taste like, but it's just not a performance that deserves to be in the conversation for an Oscar.  Not every movie is supposed to be an Oscar nominee, and she lands all of her jokes, plays her character as unknowable (but still fascinating), but it's...this is not the sort of Grade A bubble gum that we complain about missing out at Oscar...one of the few times he nominates this, and it's not something totally refreshing like Clueless or When Harry Met Sally.  Still, on some level I'm glad that Binoche got a nomination since she's deserved this at least four times since (and multiple times before).

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes separate their nominations between Drama and Musical/Comedy, so we have ten women nominated for these awards.  For Drama, Roberts won, beating out Allen, Burstyn, Linney, and Bjork (Dancer in the Dark), while for Comedy/Musical Binoche actually lost to Renee Zellweger (Nurse Betty), the rare time the Globe winner bested an Oscar nominee; also in contention were Brenda Blethyn (Saving Grace), Sandra Bullock (Miss Congeniality), and Tracey Ullman (Small Time Crooks).  SAG went with the exact same lineup (and winner) as Oscar, while BAFTA got crazy, giving their statue to Roberts, but she beat Binoche, Kate Hudson (Almost Famous), Michelle Yeoh (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), & Hilary Swank (Boys Don't Cry)...a year after Swank won the Oscar.  In sixth place, it's surely Zellweger, but I'll be honest-this was one of those "locked up tight" Best Actress lineups that no one was going to break.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: The Oscars have been criticized, frequently correctly, for ignoring the achievements of Asian actors.  22 years before she won an Oscar for Everything Everywhere All at Once, Michelle Yeoh would become the textbook example of this when she couldn't get a nomination for Best Picture nominee Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, a nomination she more-than-earned.

Oscar’s Choice: The internet will occasionally convince itself that Burstyn was a threat here, but she was not.  This was Julia's time-one of the biggest locks this category has ever seen.

My Choice: This is a good moment to remind readers that the Oscar Viewing Project is a multi-decade experiment I'm doing, where I pick only the winner in a vacuum, meaning that I don't think about outside factors (like if they've already won) to see if I make the same mistakes as the Academy, even if that means an actor I like (and a performance I'd be proud to see win a statue) never takes home the gold.  In real life, I probably would've voted for Julia too, because I am not immune to a narrative.  But if we're talking the best performance in this lineup, it's Laura Linney, and she's going to get my statue atop Roberts and then Burstyn (all three are showing up in my My Ballot next week), even if that means Roberts, the biggest actress of her era, will probably never win an OVP.  Behind them are Binoche, and finally Joan Allen.

Those are my thoughts, but now I want to hear yours!  Do you think that Roberts is genuinely the best of this lineup, or (in a vacuum) do you want to stand with Linney (or Burstyn)?  Do you think considering previous wins or career longevity is a good or bad way to handle close Oscar races with a lot of worthy contenders (like this year)?  And does it tick you off as well that Michelle Yeoh had to wait so long for her Oscar nomination?  Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Also in 2000: Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2000

Past Best Actress Contests: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022